Bahamians are still scratching their heads in wonderment as to how this govermnent could rationalise that Cuba, a country that does not recognise the inalienable rights of man, can qualify to be a member of the United Nations’ newly formed Human Rights Council.
The Council was formed specifically to get rid of such countries as Cuba – countries that used the former UN Commission on Human Rights to grandstand and deflect attention from their transgressions against their own people.
However, the Bahamas government thought otherwise. Many Bahamians were even more angered that Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell, in his lengthy explanation to justify the Bahamas’ vote, appeared to shift the blame for the decision on the Bahamas’ permanent mission at the UN. There was a certain element, which Mr Mitchell outlined, that he said was “amongst the factors that led us not to interfere with the advice given by our Permanent Mission.”
Several Bahamians pointed out that the final decision should have been that of the Bahamas government, not the civil servants who make up our permanent mission at the UN. After all, their argument went, Bahamians voted for the government, not the civil servants. In the final, analysis, it is the government – not some junior UN officer – that will have to answer to the people for a vote that still makes no sense.
There was another statement by Mr Mitchell that concerned them, and underscored their conviction that Cuba has no place on the Human uman Rights Council and that the Bahamas had no right helping to put them there.
Said Mr Mitchell “I thought the Leader of the Opposition understood that this was what was best for the Bahamas, but I am very concerned about the harsh, injudicious and intemperate language used recently to describe a country that despite our differences on their political system, has displayed no ill intention toward this country and has done everything to assist this country, most recently with the Cuban dentists issue. The language creates division where none in necessary.”
Is Mr Mitchell fully aware of the admission he has made in this statement, and how he has in that admission justified the elimination of Cuba as a member of the Human Rights Council?
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Bahamas is a signatory, states:
“(1.) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
“(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his cuuntry.”
And Article 14 says:
“(I) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”
It is presumed that every member on the Human Rights Council is pledged to uphold these essential tenets of the Declaration – including Cuba, especially now that it is a member.
If this is so, why were these Cubans in the Carmichael Road Detention Centre after being picked up at sea by the US Coast Guard as they tried to escape Cuba?
Why couldn’t these Cuban dentists, as do most normal people, living in a free society, have packed their suitcases, purchased their airline tickets and joined their families in the US?
Why were these two families separated for so long if Cuba, indeed, recognises what requirements membership on this Council will require them to uphold?
If Cuba recognized the basic, inalienable rights of its citizens – one of them being freedom of movement – why were two of its citizens in this inhumane predicament that it would have to assist the Bahamas government in getting out of an embarrassing international dilemma – a dilemma created solely by Cuba’s inhumanity to its own citizens.
Come now, Mr Mitchell as the boys on the blocks would say, “you mussy jiving with us heavy now!” not to understand that by this short scenario you have just condemned Cuba. Not only condemned Cuba, but put up a convincing case as to why it should not be a Human Rights Council member.
Obviously, there was some horse trading here. Did Cuba turn a blind eye to the Cuban dentists being released to the United States in return for the Bahamas’ vote at the UN?
This is the question that should be answered by Mr Mitchell. After all, it is Mr Mitchell who has put it in issue.
Mr Mitchell says that the Leader of the Opposition’s language “creates division where none is necessary.” No, Mr Mitchell, you are the one who has created division by defending an indefensible position. Doesn’t it seem strange to you that as Foreign Minister you would sanction a vote on behalf of the people of the Bahamas, to seat Cuba on a Council that upholds the rights of man, when Cuba itself denies its own citizens those same rights?
That is what is wrong, Mr Mitchell, and that is what is causing the division.
“I thought that the Leader of the Opposition understood that this (the decision to vote for Cuba) was what was best for the country,” said Mr Mitchell.
What a surprising statement to make by a cabinet minister whose government is supposed to be noted for its consultation. This statement alone indicates that Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham was not consulted on a very sensitive and vital issue for this country. And yet, Mr Mitchell expected the Opposition to blindly fall into step with government if only to present a united front to the world. You know, that old mumbo-jumbo about “my country right or wrong”.
Editorial from The Tribune
